If “Labor insiders” are to be believed, the population issue in places like the outer suburbs of Sydney is — to use one of their favourite words –“toxic”. So let’s drill into the soundbites to inject a bit of reality.

Yesterday on Club Troppo, Don Athur wrote that some suburbs of Sydney DO have a population problem — but not the one Gillard and Abbott are banging on about:

Between 2001 and 2006 , the population of the Campbelltown LGA fell by 2.1% — a net loss of 3,019 people.

…many areas of Sydney experienced population decline between 2001 and 2006. Some of the booming new suburbs of the 60s and 70s are slowly emptying out. While the children have grown up and moved on many of their parents have stayed behind. And when these empty nesters own their own home, there is little incentive to move. To pick just one example, between 2001 and 2006, Sutherland Shire added 2,494 new dwellings but failed to arrest the decline in population. With fewer people in each home, the number of residents fell by 1,015.

A declining population can go hand in hand with rising house prices. But with fewer residents and more of them on aged pensions, local shops will struggle. Planners in areas like Fairfield and Sutherland worry about the future viability of smaller retailers. A 2008 strategy paper prepared for Sutherland Shire Council reported:

… the negative growth rate of 0.15% represents a population that is stagnant. The lack of growth will have long-term adverse consequences for Sutherland Shire. This suggests a difficult future for retailers in the smaller centres of the Shire, particularly given that Westfield Miranda also has the capacity to expand by 25% and it is expected to pursue this potential. Without growth, the local business community will not be able to compete against the strength of the largest retailers.

A Big Problem, you’d think, in a not-so-Big Australia.